Pinned aiken version and test to check plutus.json

[ch1bo]

I noticed the aiken version used to generate the plutus.json is different than the one provided through our flake. Consequently, the re-built scripts would result in different hashes.

This PR pins to a specific aiken version in the flake and also adds a test that ensures the serialized scripts in plutus.json are deterministically created using this version.

Following this, I realized that the validators in the plutus.json were even the result of manually invoking aiken blueprint apply and interactively filling the commit script hash parameter on the initial validator.

Instead of this error prone manual step, the Hydra.Plutus module now applies parameters when providing the initialValidatorScript.

---

• CHANGELOG update not needed
• Documentation update not needed
• Haddocks update not needed
• No new TODOs introduced

[github-actions]

Transaction cost differences

Script summary

Name	Size (Bytes)
νInitial	$${\color{green}-12.00}$$
νCommit	$${\color{green}-2.00}$$
νHead	-
μHead	-
νDeposit	$${\color{green}-13.00}$$

Init transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	-	-	-	-
2	-	-	-	-
3	-	-	-	-
5	-	-	-	-
10	-	-	-	-
44	-	-	-	-

Commit transaction costs

UTxO	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	-	$${\color{green}-0.01}$$	$${\color{green}-0.01}$$	-
2	-	$${\color{green}-0.02}$$	$${\color{green}-0.01}$$	-
3	-	$${\color{green}-0.03}$$	$${\color{green}-0.01}$$	-
5	-	$${\color{green}-0.05}$$	$${\color{green}-0.01}$$	-
10	-	$${\color{green}-0.11}$$	$${\color{green}-0.03}$$	-
54	+1	$${\color{green}-0.59}$$	$${\color{green}-0.20}$$	$${\color{green}-0.01}$$

CollectCom transaction costs

Parties	UTxO (bytes)	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	-	-	$${\color{green}-0.80}$$	$${\color{green}-0.19}$$	$${\color{green}-0.01}$$
2	-	-	+2.06	+0.5	+0.02
3	-	-	$${\color{green}-2.49}$$	$${\color{green}-0.60}$$	$${\color{green}-0.03}$$
4	-	-	$${\color{green}-3.55}$$	$${\color{green}-0.86}$$	$${\color{green}-0.03}$$
5	-	-	+8.36	+2.0	+0.08
6	-	-	+1.59	+0.38	+0.02
7	-	-	$${\color{green}-10.75}$$	$${\color{green}-2.57}$$	$${\color{green}-0.10}$$
8	-	-	$${\color{green}-1.90}$$	$${\color{green}-0.45}$$	$${\color{green}-0.02}$$
10	-	-	+0.63	+0.16	-

Cost of Increment Transaction

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	$${\color{green}-13.00}$$	$${\color{green}-0.08}$$	$${\color{green}-0.02}$$	-
2	$${\color{green}-13.00}$$	$${\color{green}-0.39}$$	$${\color{green}-0.09}$$	$${\color{green}-0.01}$$
3	$${\color{green}-13.00}$$	+0.38	+0.09	-
5	$${\color{green}-13.00}$$	$${\color{green}-0.17}$$	$${\color{green}-0.04}$$	-
10	$${\color{green}-13.00}$$	+0.26	+0.06	-
43	$${\color{green}-13.00}$$	+0.3	+0.07	-

Cost of Decrement Transaction

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	-	-	-	-
2	-	-	-	-
3	-	-	-	-
5	-	+0.27	+0.06	-
10	-	-	-	-
45	-	+0.05	+0.01	-

Close transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	-	-	-	-
2	-	-	-	-
3	-	-	-	-
5	-	-	-	-
10	-	$${\color{green}-0.09}$$	$${\color{green}-0.02}$$	-
41	-	$${\color{green}-0.05}$$	$${\color{green}-0.01}$$	-

Contest transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	-	-	-	-
2	-	-	-	-
3	-	-	-	-
5	-	-	-	-
10	-	-	-	-
33	-	+0.09	+0.02	-

FanOut transaction costs

UTxO, Parties	UTxO (bytes)	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
(0, 10)	-	-	-	-	-
(1, 10)	-	-	-	-	-
(5, 10)	-	-	-	-	-
(10, 10)	-	-	-	-	-
(20, 10)	-	-	-	-	-
(40, 10)	-	-	-	-	-
(41, 10)	-	-	-	-	-

[github-actions]

Transaction costs

Sizes and execution budgets for Hydra protocol transactions. Note that unlisted parameters are currently using arbitrary values and results are not fully deterministic and comparable to previous runs.

Metadata
Generated at	2025-01-08 13:54:25.028915326 UTC
Max. memory units	14000000
Max. CPU units	10000000000
Max. tx size (kB)	16384

Script summary

Name	Hash	Size (Bytes)
νInitial	c8a101a5c8ac4816b0dceb59ce31fc2258e387de828f02961d2f2045	2655
νCommit	61458bc2f297fff3cc5df6ac7ab57cefd87763b0b7bd722146a1035c	688
νHead	5350e9d521552ebfd9e846fd70c3b801f716fc14296134ec0fb71e97	14495
μHead	6b49dc4e571207d615dba01996548cb610b0caa85c30423d169d0091*	5615
νDeposit	ae01dade3a9c346d5c93ae3ce339412b90a0b8f83f94ec6baa24e30c	1105

• The minting policy hash is only usable for comparison. As the script is parameterized, the actual script is unique per head.

Init transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	6165	10.33	3.30	0.53
2	6365	12.38	3.94	0.56
3	6566	14.79	4.73	0.59
5	6969	18.57	5.89	0.65
10	7975	28.50	8.99	0.80
44	14810	98.04	30.85	1.82

Commit transaction costs

This uses ada-only outputs for better comparability.

UTxO	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	561	2.44	1.16	0.20
2	740	3.38	1.73	0.22
3	923	4.36	2.33	0.24
5	1277	6.41	3.60	0.28
10	2179	12.13	7.25	0.40
54	10047	98.61	68.52	1.88

CollectCom transaction costs

Parties	UTxO (bytes)	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	57	525	24.20	7.07	0.42
2	114	636	34.00	9.80	0.52
3	169	747	39.74	11.56	0.59
4	225	858	49.16	14.20	0.69
5	284	969	59.25	17.04	0.79
6	338	1081	73.48	20.87	0.94
7	394	1192	84.30	23.82	1.06
8	450	1303	92.09	26.18	1.14

Cost of Increment Transaction

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	1818	23.74	7.94	0.48
2	1918	25.26	9.07	0.50
3	2091	27.04	10.29	0.53
5	2451	31.60	13.24	0.61
10	3134	39.64	19.20	0.75
45	8176	99.90	62.31	1.77

Cost of Decrement Transaction

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	607	22.68	7.32	0.41
2	758	23.89	8.34	0.44
3	959	27.81	10.08	0.49
5	1147	27.87	11.42	0.51
10	1955	38.09	17.62	0.67
42	6902	98.41	55.93	1.65

Close transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	665	28.57	9.15	0.48
2	813	28.68	9.91	0.49
3	991	32.74	11.88	0.54
5	1329	34.74	14.03	0.59
10	2073	47.09	21.42	0.78
37	6066	93.79	55.07	1.57

Contest transaction costs

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	691	33.35	10.43	0.53
2	768	34.73	11.40	0.55
3	1014	37.86	13.25	0.60
5	1368	43.07	16.38	0.68
10	2003	52.62	22.64	0.83
31	5111	96.85	50.87	1.52

Abort transaction costs

There is some variation due to the random mixture of initial and already committed outputs.

Parties	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
1	6069	26.17	8.85	0.69
2	6117	33.79	11.36	0.77
3	6296	43.23	14.60	0.88
4	6414	49.11	16.62	0.95
5	6635	61.95	21.08	1.09
6	6865	73.16	24.94	1.22
7	6980	81.44	27.73	1.32
8	6971	83.77	28.37	1.34
9	7144	96.35	32.67	1.48

FanOut transaction costs

Involves spending head output and burning head tokens. Uses ada-only UTXO for better comparability.

Parties	UTxO	UTxO (bytes)	Tx size	% max Mem	% max CPU	Min fee ₳
10	0	0	6162	16.93	5.75	0.60
10	1	56	6196	20.35	7.07	0.64
10	10	569	6502	36.52	13.62	0.83
10	20	1137	6839	56.62	21.69	1.07
10	30	1708	7182	76.42	29.65	1.30
10	40	2276	7520	96.75	37.80	1.54
10	42	2391	7589	99.73	39.03	1.57

End-to-end benchmark results

This page is intended to collect the latest end-to-end benchmark results produced by Hydra's continuous integration (CI) system from the latest master code.

Please note that these results are approximate as they are currently produced from limited cloud VMs and not controlled hardware. Rather than focusing on the absolute results, the emphasis should be on relative results, such as how the timings for a scenario evolve as the code changes.

Generated at 2025-01-08 13:57:46.644243871 UTC

Baseline Scenario

Number of nodes	1
Number of txs	300
Avg. Confirmation Time (ms)	4.589003753
P99	8.882057319999992ms
P95	5.917668600000001ms
P50	4.409644999999999ms
Number of Invalid txs	0

Three local nodes

Number of nodes	3
Number of txs	900
Avg. Confirmation Time (ms)	23.356864754
P99	37.14719702999998ms
P95	30.249352699999996ms
P50	21.5309465ms
Number of Invalid txs	0

[github-actions]

Test Results

  5 files  ±0  165 suites  ±0   30m 18s ⏱️ -23s
561 tests  - 2  555 ✅  - 2  6 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
563 runs   - 2  557 ✅  - 2  6 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 14f92f4. ± Comparison against base commit 2039d7c.

This pull request removes 3 and adds 1 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.

Hydra.Plutus.Golden ‑ Commit validator script
Hydra.Plutus.Golden ‑ Deposit validator script
Hydra.Plutus.Golden ‑ Initial validator script

Hydra.Plutus.Golden ‑ Plutus blueprint is up-to-date

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.